PFOA, aka Perfluorooctanoic acid, is everywhere. It’s in the wrappers of frozen pizza and microwave popcorn; it’s in Teflon pots and pans; it’s in the stain resistant coating that protects new carpets.

PFOA is a stable man-made chemical used in industrial and consumer goods because it is good at repelling heat, water, grease and stains.

It is found in the blood of 98 percent of Americans and in 100 percent of all newborns, according to Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

British researcher Tamara Galloway, who is the author of a new report on PFOA, says there’s some debate about how exactly PFOA gets into the body. ” It’s generally thought to be from the diet (e.g. fast food wrappers), from handling consumer and industrial objects and from ingesting household dusts.”

Concerns about PFOA have been around since the ‘70s, and the EPA has labeled PFOA as a potential carcinogen.
Now, British scientists have come up with additional cause for worry: people with higher concentrations of PFOA in their blood appear to have higher rates of thyroid disease.

The new study that was published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives, observed 3,966 adults 20 or more years of age. Their blood serum was tested between 1999 and 2006 for PFOA and all were questioned as to whether they had had thyroid problem. The researchers discovered that those with the highest 25 percent of PFOA levels were more than twice as likely to report being on medication for ongoing thyroid disease compared to those with the lowest 50 percent of PFOA concentrations.

The study was led by Galloway, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter (U.K.) School of Biosciences, who notes, “These results highlight a real need for further research into the human health effects of low-level exposures to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are ubiquitous in the environment and in people’s homes. We need to know what they are doing.”

A scientist with the EWG reports that PFOA doesn’t break down and because it can live forever, it contaminates the environment, the food chain and the population.

The chemical industry has often defended its product saying that a small dose of PFOA is not a concern, but Walker disagrees.

“We now know that small amounts of PFOA exposure at the wrong time – such as to the fetus or to an infant, are of even more concern than PFOA exposure to an adult.” Olga Naidenko, senior scientist with EWG, agrees, adding that while no scientific study is definitive, “this paper strengthens our understanding that these chemicals have an effect on hormones.”

More research is needed, says Galloway, to determine how PFOA affects the functioning of the human thyroid. It’s possible that the PFOA compounds might be disrupting the binding of thyroid hormones in the blood, or might be altering their metabolism in the liver. Another point she makes is that it’s nearly impossible to figure out whether the higher PFOA levels already existed before the thyroid diagnosis.

So, what’s the answer? Naidenko says the best thing to do is decrease the source of our exposure to PFOA. “Avoid microwave popcorn. Try making good old-fashioned popcorn on the stove,” she says. “Also, instead of buying clothes that are coated with PFOA, consumers need to ask tough questions of their manufacturers. “Don’t buy it, if you discover that the item may be made with PFOA.”

In addition to curbing individual exposure, local governments need to monitor drinking water that has been found to have detectable levels of PFOA.

PFOA is not just an American phenomenon. It is a global problem, says Galloway. “PFOA is very hard to break down once it’s been made, which makes it a very persistent compound. It is found in humans, wildlife and in soil and water samples from across the globe, even in the Arctic. The data we used is from the largest study to have measured the chemical in the general population — studies that suggest that human and wildlife populations in other countries are exposed to similar levels.”

“We will definitely be doing more research to find out more about the links between PFOA and adverse health,” she says.

EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Man-made chemicals that have long made life easier for everyone from cooks to clothiers are getting another round of scientific scrutiny. They may be related to unhealthy levels of cholesterol, a study released Monday suggests.

Jessica Nelson, one of the authors of a new study of chemicals' impact on cholesterol

The chemicals are PFCs, and they’ve already been proven problematic. The Environmental Protection Agency and the top producers of one PFC (perfluoroalkys) have agreed to eliminate its use and emissions worldwide by 2015.

Even if they were eradicated tomorrow, the researchers at Boston University School of Public Health point out that some PFCs linger in the body a long time – one has a half-life of up to 8½ years.

There are hundreds of PFCs, and science is just scratching the surface of their potential impact on people. The chemicals are used to create non-stick or repellent materials on a laundry list of products. Your cooking pan, that waterproof jacket, your carpet and the packaging your frozen dinner came in all contain PFCs. The chemicals are used in almost every industry, from automobiles to electronics, textiles to cleaning products.

“PFCs have been used for over 50 years,” said Jessica W. Nelson, one of the authors of the study. “It is a large family of chemicals. There has been a fair amount of study in animals, but studies with people have been fewer.”

In studies of animals, there were direct correlations between high PFC levels and a host of illnesses, including cancer and developmental problems, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

“So far, these have mostly consisted of studies in people who work with PFCs and have higher exposures. Studies of people exposed to background levels are just starting to come out,” Nelson said.

Many water-repellent fabrics and surfaces contain PFCs.

“We really don’t know specifically how people are being exposed to PFCs. . . . They’re used widely in industry as surfactants and coatings. They make products resistant to stains, oil and water,” Nelson said Monday. “They’re used in products like pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, take-out food wrappers, textile coatings, carpet treatments . . . “

Researchers believe PFCs may enter the body through food and drinking water, ingesting and inhaling air and dust, or directly from products.

So what is the correlation between the PFCs and cholesterol?

The scientists were able to gather blood serum from 2,094 people, making use of a large, varied group of Americans who have been part of an ongoing survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Our study found an association between blood levels of several PFCs and higher levels of bad (LDL) cholesterol,” Nelson said. Of the study participants, the 25 percent carrying the highest levels of PFOS, PFOA and PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) in their bodies had higher levels of “bad” serum cholesterol.

The study participants with the least amount of those three PFCs had less “bad” cholesterol in their bodies. There was not a clear link between PFCs and body size/weight and insulin resistance, which the researchers also analyzed.

Non-stick cookware has long been made with PFC coatings.

One interesting finding in the study suggests that even typical adults with relatively low levels of the three PFCs in their bodies had higher LDL cholesterol than the general population. This was especially pronounced in people with PFNA in their systems.

The fourth chemical, PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), which has not been studied extensively, did not appear to have a strong link with cholesterol levels.

Researcher Nelson emphasized that their findings are “exploratory, and need to be followed up.

“Our results do not say that PFCs cause higher cholesterol. However, the association that we found – together with what other studies have found – is cause for concern and more research.”

The most prevalent chemical, PFOS, was more common in non-Hispanic white males, and age didn’t appear to be a factor.

The ranks of people with high levels of “bad” cholesterol has been growing, and that is linked to coronary heart disease, among other health problems.

“Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the literature suggesting that PFC exposure may disrupt cholesterol metabolism or homeostasis in humans,” the report said.

The study appeared in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal and is available online. The journal is part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The EPA has answers to frequent questions about PFCs, and more information is available from the nation’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

What started out as a practical way to keep food from sticking to pans and paper, may not be so great for our health. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, is a synthetic (man-made) chemical that is used to coat Teflon cookware as well as the packaging of many fast-food products, including pizza boxes and fast food wrappers. It’s also used in stain-resistant fabric and Gore-Tex clothing, and if a California bill succeeds, it will be gone from food packaging, at least in that state.

California Senator Ellen Corbett has drafted a bill (SB 1313) that would ban PFOA in food packaging sold in California by 2010. The senator has said there’s no reason to continue to make products containing PFOA when there are safe alternatives that responsible corporations are already using. Some companies have discovered more natural clay-based options.

The Environmental Protection Agency has identified PFOA as a potential carcinogen and has instituted a voluntary reduction plan for companies that make PFOA. The plan “invites companies” to reduce PFOA in products by 95 percent by 2010 and “to work toward” eliminating it no later than 2015.

Environmentalists, however, say voluntary reductions are not enough.

PFOA is a toxic chemical that gets absorbed into the food product it is wrapped around. It is present in 98 percent of Americans’ blood and 100 percent in newborns, says Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group. A scientist with the EWG reports that each molecule of PFOA made today doesn’t break down. Because it exists forever, PFOA contaminates the environment, the food chain and the population.

The chemical industry has argued that exposure to a small dose of PFOA is not dangerous, but Walker calls this “outmoded science.”

“We now know that small amounts of PFOA exposure at the wrong time – such as to the fetus or to an infant, are of even more concern than PFOA exposure to an adult.”

A spokeswoman for Corbett’s office said they hope the bill reaches the governor’s office by the end of August. The EWG, a sponsor of the bill, assisted the governor’s office with the science that backs up the proposal.

Should California pass the bill, Walker says, this may have a domino effect across the country.

“A lot of times a bill in California will make a difference. We’d like to see a federal law passed to protect the consumer.” The voluntary phase-out program proposed by the EPA is not as good as a ban.

“There’s no binding agreement, no fines. It also doesn’t affect overseas products that come into the U.S.,” Walker says.

PFOA is found in the paper packaging of not only drive-thru burger joints, but microwave popcorn, candy wrappers, some pizza boxes and many frozen food products. The problem is that it’s not listed on the labels of the packaging, so consumers don’t know how to avoid it. And even with labels, Walker argues, consumers probably wouldn’t notice.

A few companies have voluntarily chosen to not use packaging made with PFOA – Burger King, Wendy’s and Krispy Kreme, among them.

As for microwave popcorn, people can skip the bagged version (saving packaging as well as potential PFOA exposure) and pop it the old-fashioned way in a popcorn popper or on the stove.

Using fresh, rather than frozen or fast-food, products can be another way to avoid the chemical, those it may not offer some of the efficiencies we’ve become accustomed to.

The dangers of PFOA came to the EPA’s attention in the ‘80s when a whistleblower from DuPont , the primary maker of PFOA, told the EPA that DuPont was aware of the chemical’s dangers, but was doing nothing about it. The company was fined $16.5 million — $10 million in penalties plus an additional $6 million to conduct research on alternative products. Prior to DuPont, the 3M Company was responsible for making the majority of products with PFOA.

In 2000, 3M quit using the chemical when it discovered PFOA was building up in people’s bodies, including their own workers.

Scientist Glen Evers, the whistleblower who worked for DuPont for 22 years describes Sen. Corbett’s legislation as “groundbreaking.”

“This [legislation] will stop the use of toxic chemicals that pollute our blood and devastate our environment,” he says on the governor’s website. “If a company can stop production of perfluorinated chemicals at a $100 million business in three months as 3M did, I am proud to see the Senate can act just as quickly to make other companies follow suit.”

DuPont maintains that the legislation is unnecessary because the treatment of food packaging with PFOA has not been found to be hazardous by previous regulatory testing.

“SB1313 overrules consistent research results and regulatory decisions on
food and product safety made by expert scientists at the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA/Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), and the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),” a company spokesman said in a statement.

“In addition, this bill would also ban many alternatives, some of which have
recently been approved by the FDA,” said DuPont spokesman Dan Turner. “SB1313 takes the decision on the safety of an important consumer product out of the hands of state and federal food and environmental scientists – the experts who are best positioned and qualified to make this important call.

Dale Kemery, an EPA spokesman, reports the agency’s risk assessment of PFOA is not complete. In the meantime, he says, “Our global stewardship program inviting companies to reduce PFOA is aimed at reducing the chemical’s impact on the environment.”

National toxic chemical reform is necessary on many fronts, says the EWG’s Walker, who adds that the government is going about it backwards. The way it should work, he says, “is that we should prove something is safe before allowing it on the market, not the other way around.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media